We should be careful here because a lockdown and a medieval quarantine are not the same. In the middle ages quarantine typically meant keeping a ship at port an

We should be careful here because a lockdown and a medieval quarantine are not the same. In the middle ages quarantine typically meant keeping a ship at port and preventing from landing - and that's a very doable thing. You literally just prevent them from dropping their gang plank, and they have supplies and everything they need on board. The same does not apply to lockdowns. People need groceries, many people have limited cooking capabilities, and homes are not self sufficient - you need maintenance people, regular supplies, so on. And, those people who live in apartments and other small domiciles are not going to stay cooped up forever on end - they are going to go get food and visit people and no amount of threats is going to prevent that. And that's the issue. Lockdowns always have a maximum timetable that they're effective for and then they suddenly become less effective - and you don't get to reset that timer all that easily. Masks help but they are a partial solution - they have a relatively low effectiveness rate that is fine individually but in mass don't hold up. Many governments - and I'll pick on California specifically - keep locking down tighter and tigher. Curfews, dining restrictions, gathering restrictions and more that have been going on for more than 6 months now. Do you really think getting more restrictive will be helpful at all?